I do see your point, however, and it leads me to wonder: Who is it that defines a genre? The writers? The publishers? The bookstore buyers? Or the readers?

My first, tongue in cheek (sort of) response was that literary scholars define genres, but I’m pretty sure that to non-academics, the answer is very different. I see the word “define” as pretty strong and, well, definitive, but I’m starting to understand beter that not everyone has the same perception of the act of defining. My own answer is that readers help shape a genre, as do publishers and authors (especially). But obviously there are many people who think that it’s primarily readers who define a genre. Would the same argument be made about the length and form of a sonnet, though? I guess it depends on how you define genre to being with.

I might be persuaded to view it as a romance, but I think that many romance readers would be frustrated if they found a book with such a storyline on the romance shelf of their bookstore. I also don’t believe there are many writers with Emily Bronte’s ability to craft such a satisfying and optimistic ending out of this kind of tale.

I do see your point, however, and it leads me to wonder: Who is it that defines a genre? The writers? The publishers? The bookstore buyers? Or the readers?

. . .the more I think about it the more I think that some of the deepest pleasure I get from reading romances comes from those swooningly romantic moments. If a book is successful in evoking that kind of emotion in me, I do not want the couple to separate or one of them to die. It’s not my idea of emotionally satisfying or optimistic.

I understand what you’re saying here, Janine (I keep wnting to spell your name Jeanine, because a friend of mine spells hers that way, and she’s the only Jeanine I know), but I think my focus tends to be more on the central love relationship as definitive of Romance than on the end, per se. In fact, I’ve been thinking a lot about whether I would argue now that Wuthering Heights is a proto-Romance, and not just romantic (and Romantic). Because for me, the relationship between Heathcliff and Katherine so overshadows everything else in that book, not only in the writing, but in the plot itself. And while both leads die, the book ends optimistically, IMO, with the promise of family healing for future generations (and a fruitful romantic attachment between the families) and the reuniting of Heathcliff and Katherine, ostensibly forever. This is a little bit of a change in my own thinking, but even though I don’t find WH particularly romantic (although I don’t find Jane Eyre romantic, either), I’m thinking it might satisfy my own criteria for a Romance with an emotionally satisfying but unconventional ending.

But why? Well, in my mind (and I’m only claiming it for myself, not putting the presumption on anyone else) because of how it ended, how the romance between the two of them is ended, there’s not even promise of a happily ever after for the two of them.

And for it to be a romance, I need that emotional satisfaction that comes at the end, that things they’re going to be happy and escape life’s tragedies. So heck yeah, there was romance, it was romantic, but it wasn’t “a” romance.

Carry on.

It’s not a matter of definitions, but again, of expectations.

To me, anyway, expectations and definitions are not necessarily synonymous, although I think they are conflated often enough in discussions of genre fiction.

I have nothing against the H EA in Romance, and, in fact, find a convincing HEA wonderfully appealing. Where I get nervous, though, is in saying that Romance is “defined” by the HEA, because, for example, when Jan Butler tried to make that argument about male/female Romance, it didn’t fly for readers (including me) who believe that m/m or f/f Romance also fit in the RWA “definition” of Romance. So since there is also ambiguity in the way the RWA defines the end of a Romance, I feel like somewhat of a hypocrite in taking whatever my expectation for an HEA ending might be and insisting it’s a definitional requirement. I’m not saying this is the case for other readers, but since I don’t think Butler had the right to limit Romance in the way she did, neither do I think I can definitely say that Romance — by definition — requires an HEA. I’d love to know how other readers who don’t find this to be a contradiction resolve it, because I can’t seem to.

It’s difficult, I think, in today’s Romance market to see the genre as separate from the HEA because the love relationship is so often characterized as destined or as “THE ONEâ€Â? which seems to make the HEA a logical requirement. BUT if the genre evolved a little, and became less reliant on that “fatedâ€Â? aspect of the love relationship, I could see more types of endings that would be “optimisticâ€Â? and “emotionally satisfyingâ€Â? without having the HEA as we know it today.

This is a thought-provoking conversation, but the more I think about it the more I think that some of the deepest pleasure I get from reading romances comes from those swooningly romantic moments. If a book is successful in evoking that kind of emotion in me, I do not want the couple to separate or one of them to die. It’s not my idea of emotionally satisfying or optimistic.

If a book is not successful in evoking that feeling in me, then it’s somewhat disappointing, and I don’t see how having the couple part or having one of them die will make it more satisfying or optimistic.

About whether I want to the focus of romance to shift away from the other person being THE ONE and the two characters being destined for one another, I have only found a few books that make me feel that way in the first place. But I love those books, and I wish there were more, not less.

What I would like is for the characters in many romances to stop acting as though they know the other person is THE ONE from the moment they meet. How would they know that? I want more realism and less fantasy in my books, but the reason I want it is because greater realism can enhance the romantic fantasy.

What I’m looking for in a romance is a romantic relationship that I can imagine will continue happily for the most part. I don’t demand a lot of the things that many other readers demand, such as complete monogamy even before marriage much less after, or no long separations, or for the heroine to be a near-virgin. But I do want to believe that they will be happy together.

Do I like a really good HEA? Sure — I find that emotionally satisfying and optimistic. But if an author can convince me that a character’s death or a break-up is the not something to brood over, then yes, I can embrace Romance without the HEA. As it is, I don’t think many of these couples will make it in the long run, anyway! And do we really want all those people staying together for the sake of the children?

I don’t usually judge the relationships I read about in romances in that way. Most of the time I can imagine them okay together. Not that they are destined, or amazingly right for each other (except in a few books), but that their relationship will work, yes. I don’t think it’s that hard to make a relationship work if both people are committed to that goal.

And I think it would be far, far harder for an author to convince me that a hero or heroine’s death or a breakup is not something to brood over.

Stories where lovers die, part, change their mind, sacrifice love for the greater good? All can be compelling reading, wonderful, satisfying stories. But not what the Romance reader is looking for, paying for, when they deliberately, specifically pick up a Romance novel.

Writers and publishers within the genre know this perfectly well. If we want to tell a story that won’t meet, can’t meet, shouldn’t meet that basic expectation, we just can’t call it a Romance Novel.

There’s a difference between evolving and mutating. Once you remove one of the essential elements that forms a Romance Novel, it’s another animal altogether.

What I find interesting is the broader language of the RWA.

I don’t think that matters in the real world. Like Diana Peterfreund posted below, most readers don’t know the RWA definition. In making generalizations, I am relying on my own experience in the bookstore, my discussions with other readers over the past 15 years, Jolie’s bookstore experience where she meets, greets and sells books to hundreds of customers, and Michelle B’s readership which is likely in the thousands.

If you look at the quotes by the editors, they know it is not romance as well which is were the misleading part comes in. In their own publishing minds, they have declared these books as non romances.

the thing is that a romance is defined by an HEA.

For many readers this seems to be the case. What I find interesting is the broader language of the RWA. I’m trying to discern whether the situation there is at all akin to the claims that some readers make that Romance is defined as a love story beetween a man and a woman, even thuogh the RWA definition doesn’t put it that specifically. And if it’s a different kind of situation, why is it different?

if the main focus of the book is the romantic relationship, can an ending in which the protagonists break up or one of them dies present a broader sense that “All’s right with the worldâ€Â??

For me it can, I think. For example, I agree that the Time Traveler’s Wife is not a Romance, but I don’t make that categorization based on the ending. I make that distinction because to me TTTW is not really a love stor at its center; more than anything, I see that as a book about how time orders and shapes our identities and about how loss shapes our relationships.

It’s difficult, I think, in today’s Romance market to see the genre as separate from the HEA because the love relationship is so often characterized as destined or as “THE ONE” which seems to make the HEA a logical requirement. BUT if the genre evolved a little, and became less reliant on that “fated” aspect of the love relationship, I could see more types of endings that would be “optimistic” and “emotionally satisfying” without having the HEA as we know it today. That’s why I brought up my question in respnse to Jane’s question above. How much of what the RWA definition is doing is setting guidelines that can accomodate different permutations within a broad generic definition.

Do I like a really good HEA? Sure — I find that emotionally satisfying and optimistic. But if an author can convince me that a character’s death or a break-up is the not something to brood over, then yes, I can embrace Romance without the HEA. As it is, I don’t think many of these couples will make it in the long run, anyway! And do we really want all those people staying together for the sake of the children?

I think a reader, if asked, will say that she does not require a HEA in all books. But that is not the question. The question is whether romances, those labeled, marketed, packaged and shelved in romance, should have an HEA. For the huge majority of readers, the answer is yes.

Will those same readers accept a non HEA in a non romance? Absolutely but I refer to that as reading outside the genre and so do many, many other readers.

I can only come back to the original statement and that is, if you are writing a relationship focused book and it does not have an HEA, the only reason why you want it categorized as a romance is to get the romance buyer to look at it and buy it and not because it truly is a romance.

There does not need to be an expansion of the romance definition to include books that have non HEA endings. Those books can be marketed, shelved, packaged and labeled as fiction. It’s not as if there isn’t place for those books in the market. There is. It’s just not next to Nora Roberts, Julia Quinn, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Eloisa James and the rest of the romance authors.

I agree with all that you say above, Robin, but if the main focus of the book is the romantic relationship, can an ending in which the protagonists break up or one of them dies present a broader sense that “All’s right with the world”?

Chick Lit for both BN and Borders/Waldenbooks are supposed to be shelved in Fiction. The reason you may see Red Dress Ink (which I’ve heard is no longer going to be printing) in romance is because it’s published by Harlequin, whose lines are 99% romance. (Yet another saga of let’s put it in romance because it *sorta* is!)

Or it could be what we call managers preference. Meaning that a manager can change a companany’s directive if he/she feels that their market warrents it. For example, in my store we shelve romance in the front portion of the store because we sell so much of it. Whereas in other stores you may find the romance further back into the store.

Oh and to answer your question, yes, marketing chick lit as romance is false advertising.

I think it depends on the store. My local Barnes and Noble shelves most chick lit with general fiction, but the Red Dress Ink books are shelved with romance.

Yep, to me it is. :D